From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C0181381F3 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 95F3AE09FA; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:57:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBA14E09F3 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:57:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-4db0e59f.pool.mediaWays.net [77.176.229.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71F1E33BDD3 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51C95B70.60805@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:57:20 +0200 From: hasufell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130606 Thunderbird/17.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Questions for Candidates (was: Questioning/Interviewing council nominees) References: <51BF597B.6060600@gentoo.org> <51C7688A.2020103@gentoo.org> <51C77DD6.3090700@gentoo.org> <51C8C7EB.5090301@gentoo.org> <20130625091116.63bdd157@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20130625091116.63bdd157@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 8dd1d4b6-cc85-4fab-83d2-e67bbfc1f290 X-Archives-Hash: 08817f885cd8a5d796166dd28012ae93 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/25/2013 09:11 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2013-06-25, o godz. 00:27:55 hasufell > napisał(a): > >> On 06/24/2013 12:59 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: >>> The dev manual doesn't believe this is implicit nor without >>> any consensus. True, it doesn't ban you from adding a new >>> eclass, but it doesn't say you can just go and randomly add new >>> eclasses without discussion either. >> >> I know the devmanual quite well. The example in it's procedure >> was a bit more complex than you are describing, so I don't see >> how that adds anything. >> >> People agreed that the eclass is fine, but there was no real >> consensus about the question whether we actually want an eclass >> based solution. You can't have both, because it does not make >> sense. At one point you have to decide, council did nothing to >> aid in this heated (really heated) discussion. > > Wasn't there? I can think of the two people being really unhappy > with it (guess why), a few more being unsure or indifferent. You > can't get all the people to be happy. > > I'm really sorry that you're unhappy with the solution we've put > our work into. But I'd really appreciate if you two stopped > undermining it, 'spreading FUD' and accepted the fact that -- even > if the eclass-based solution didn't get a 'real consensus' -- yours > wouldn't get even that close to it. > > And I'm sad that you can't keep it professional. I'm doing my best > to help you with multilib-portage. It's an out-of-tree project > which is not officially supported, yet I hack the eclass to keep it > working. And I don't get anything for it, really, just more > blustering [dictionary translation, meaning may have been lost]. > > That said, I don't know what the Council could or should do. > Should the Council be responsible for reading discussions and > grabbing whether there was a consensus or not? Or making one in the > name of the whole community? > > Last but not least, I don't even know if there were *two* > solutions proposed. It seems a bit like it's between *a working > solution now*, and not doing anything and waiting till you get it > anywhere near official acceptance. Note that the timeframe and > willingness of people to work on it is an important point as well. > And likeliness that everything breaks apart when people touch > multilib.eclass. > I'm sorry but this is all somehow offtopic, since the questions were directed to dberkholz and can be answered without discussing the _example_. Thanks. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRyVtwAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzl8QH/0zfThFHJdjqSts5dSYoSFre lqQEqUw/zpCv6xstG5WGXV1YSAhciTLIr7FNRHL5Hx0zKckG3tJo09sevW78ja1K 1WuLI21So8AEPpUFhT+jT8b6xoHr/tO0Jf/6THKygWQn/5WkjS/yFbR/3VKB9Mgk Mx7pRxUeh3MX3seFuT9PtrW30YWeinqaVVmef7JcJNOZGMW69m5NbHWY4vnF1Ogy I1P94pq3ce/UFJqKrpsDZnIR2marEhTMKv7VV8hcay2XaarYr32myTupYeLVDlAX kpze8BbkvKJ2yYNjxO7GtEj5k7PV5K251xbKvugVNcPYQTt69U7dDcuVoa/gCEY= =zqua -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----